Posted by coach_deen on 6/22/2013 8:56:00 PM (view original):I'll say it one more time. The game some of you are asking for IS NOT football, it's recruiting. If a SIM recruiting game was what we were after I would agree 100% with what you're saying, but it's not. We're looking for a SIM FOOTBALL GAME, and part of football, a big part, is coaching/game planning. The fact that you want to basically remove that from the game, whether you are willing to admit it or not, is saying that you either can't, don't have time or simply don't want to game plan. I'm just about done with beta, and GD, but it's not the engine that's driving me away, it's the coaches that are screaming for a game that is about as far from football as it could possibly be.......

Coach_deen, can you answer me when my stud players are going to play over their head. This shouldn't be limited to the underdog teams, correct? My D1AA teams have both been beaten and beaten heavily by teams I have advantages at every position. Shouldn't my players at some point play above their heads as well?

coach deen - not to be on your case, but you are putting yourself in the hot seat... you always argue about game planning and "playing above their heads" from an underdog point of view. Give us your take on when your team is the superior one and has to face the agony as it gets beat by an inferior team, put together by simmy because they "played up" against you. (No arguements accepted stating - "I don't get beat by sims 'cuz I gameplan" because in this case they are blowing your gameplan up because they are playing over their heads, their 10 point weaker OL is blowing holes for 25 speed RB to get 10 yards per run, knocking your 15 point superior receivers down and stuffing your run for 1.5 YPC with 30 tackle DL.)

I spent almost 2 hours this morning going over posts, all about talent vs. game planning. I have never said talent shouldn't matter. I have never even said talent shouldn't be the most important factor. I believe 100% that it is and should be, by far, the most important factor. All I'm saying is game planning should also matter, and I don't care how many times words are put in my mouth I will not budge on this. The argument that Bama beats Col St. regardless of their game plan is absolutely ridicules! Does anyone really believe that Bama feels that way? I promise you that if Alabama & Col. St. played 100 times, and Bama just flipped a coin to decide whether they run or pass on every play they would lose to Col. St. 25%-30% of the games. If you don't believe that you have never stepped on a football field and have no idea what type of athletes play major college.
Again, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes...talent should be the most important factor, but not to the point where any coach should be able to recruit a good team then just set back and let it coach itself to a bowl game or the playoffs...this is all I'm saying!!!!

"in this case they are blowing your game plan up because they are playing over their heads, their 10 point weaker OL is blowing holes for 25 speed RB to get 10 yards per run, knocking your 15 point superior receivers down and stuffing your run for 1.5 YPC with 30 tackle DL"

Come on katz, do you really believe this is what I'm looking for? If I've come across like this is what I want, I haven't meant to, but I don't believe I have. I've only said that I think game planning should be about 25%-30% of the game. The point I've been trying to get across is even if I have the superior team, and I'm playing a SIM, I should still have to at least pay attention to my game plan or, yes, I'm taking a chance on getting my tail kicked 25%-30% of the games, and I think that is true in RL and should be the case in GD.

You run these with the different formation matchups. (IE. I-Formation vs every defense, then Pro-Set vs every defense, etc.)

The results of these simulations must be meticulously scrutinized.

Once tweaks are made to the engine and the results are acceptable after re-simming, you do the same simulations again with the teams being 5% (or points) apart, then 10% (or points) apart, etc.

IMO if this had been done before the Beta release, there would have been very few changes needed to the engine during Beta testing.

This can still be done now. It's not too late.

Really needed to be done and presented to the forum. I believe that Norbert did do some testing, but left much up to the coaches. Biggest difficulty I faced when trying to do some testing was the hidden factors that made comparing teams reliable. That means when the PBP code was analyzed, I couldn't tell if the (00,00) numbers were the final or pre-modified values and whether the position balances were applied already or not. I think the comparisons need to be run with as much transparencey as possible at first, no modifications and then if needed add these fuzzy factors in to see how they affect the game as much as % advantage factors. Norbert thought his coding for this game was farther along than it was. He tried to short-cut the time needed for getting even teams to play consistently, and then he started adding new stuff which made it more difficult.

Posted by coach_deen on 6/23/2013 6:22:00 AM (view original):"in this case they are blowing your game plan up because they are playing over their heads, their 10 point weaker OL is blowing holes for 25 speed RB to get 10 yards per run, knocking your 15 point superior receivers down and stuffing your run for 1.5 YPC with 30 tackle DL"

Come on katz, do you really believe this is what I'm looking for? If I've come across like this is what I want, I haven't meant to, but I don't believe I have. I've only said that I think game planning should be about 25%-30% of the game. The point I've been trying to get across is even if I have the superior team, and I'm playing a SIM, I should still have to at least pay attention to my game plan or, yes, I'm taking a chance on getting my tail kicked 25%-30% of the games, and I think that is true in RL and should be the case in GD.

Maybe if game planning is 25% to 30% result of a play, you still have to consider that if the game plans are matched (pro vs 4-3, WB vs 4-4, trips vs nickel) the game plan advantage is now relatively even and it will all come down to player ratings. If I am trying to run from trips against the 5-2, pass from NDB against the dime, I should be penalized 25% to 30% for running the wrong offense against that defense, sure enough (and taken out back and shot). But if my offense matches their defense (even with the screwy pass or run only choices the engine makes us have) that advantage is now very minimal and then comes down to player match-ups and not game planning. Right now the engine doesn't seem to be giving credit for a run D vs run O, coverage long vs the deep ball and accounting for blocking schemes or blitzing. This is all screwed up because the logic behind the plays doesn't make sense.

I still contend that any game planning or mental magic can be easily negated and player ratings should be the primary and absolute determining factor to the production of an end result in a play or game.

"""But if my offense matches their defense (even with the screwy pass or run only choices the engine makes us have) that advantage is now very minimal and then comes down to player match-ups and not game planning."""

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. If my talent is way superior, but I run a nickel/pass against their ND, they should still be able to run the ball against me fairly well. BUT...if I run a 4-4 or a 5-2 / run against their ND I should completely shut their running game down 90%-100% of the time. Maybe we're thinking a lot more alike than we have realized? (LOL)

I agree with the above statement and coach-deen reply if both teams are near each other in talent. However if 1 team is far superior in talent running the wrong offense or defense should not matter. The team with the superior talent should win most of the times. Having said that using the wrong offense or defense should diminish the amount of advantage I have on the play, but I should still have an advantage based on superior talent

Posted by runnrun on 6/23/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):I agree with the above statement and coach-deen reply if both teams are near each other in talent. However if 1 team is far superior in talent running the wrong offense or defense should not matter. The team with the superior talent should win most of the times. Having said that using the wrong offense or defense should diminish the amount of advantage I have on the play, but I should still have an advantage based on superior talent

Again, I agree, but the key to this statement is "most of the time", not every time.

Posted by coach_deen on 6/23/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):"""But if my offense matches their defense (even with the screwy pass or run only choices the engine makes us have) that advantage is now very minimal and then comes down to player match-ups and not game planning."""

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. If my talent is way superior, but I run a nickel/pass against their ND, they should still be able to run the ball against me fairly well. BUT...if I run a 4-4 or a 5-2 / run against their ND I should completely shut their running game down 90%-100% of the time. Maybe we're thinking a lot more alike than we have realized? (LOL)

I agree with this. My superior offensive line can't get traction against a inferior DL. I have had to run passing put of the box to stay in games, even when I am running a superior OL and superior RB against inferior talent running a 4-4 or 5-2 shouldn't I still get a benefit from a better talent advantage? Yet my superior TE and average WR can catch and run all day against their inferior DB's playing nickel. The engine needs to slim down, get balanced and then work on the special situations.

Posted by slid64er on 6/19/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):I've tested games against myself where I've won/lost by 30+ points. Same team, same gameplans, same personnel, 30+ points of variability.

But hey, at least everyone has a chance to win every game and we all get a participation medal.

The most talented teams don't always win every game sometimes the best coaching jobs plus systems over come lack of talent.

This was the exact same team playing itself. There was no better coaching or system for my team, they were both stuck with me as the coach.

I would actually grab another team when talent, systems, and game planning matters. Being new to the game i didn't like the random outcomes either. Just one opinion, if I knew that a coach could practice formations plus stay at a school a longtime and build up a program with talent then the outcomes should be that team wins a vast majority of the time. I'm not really understanding why these guys cannot put in a game simulation something like the college football match ups on the main website and just deviate off of That.

You know where talent mattered? GD 1.0. And contrary to a lot of the uninformed bloviating you may hear from people who couldn't figure it out, gameplanning actually mattered, too, when talent was within reasonable ranges.

You know where talent matters somewhat less? GD 2.0. And gameplanning matters, but not in good ways... not in ways that can be figured out... not in ways that are reproducable with much confidence.